Slashdot Mirror
Google Book Search Settlement Receiving Criticism
waderoush writes "While James Gleick, Lawrence Lessig, and other pundits have reacted positively to this week's proposed settlement of the publishing industry's lawsuit against Google over the Google Book Search project, a deeper study of the agreement turns up some worrisome provisions that could make online access to books much more costly and difficult than it needs to be. Harvard University's libraries, for example, declined to endorse the settlement over concerns that it provides no mechanism for keeping the cost of access to books reasonable. And while the parties to the settlement have made much of the clause providing public libraries with free full-text access to Google's database of over 7 million out-of-print books, Xconomy has a post pointing out that this access is restricted to exactly one Google terminal per library. So, you can read books for free — as long as you're the first person to get to your public library's computer room in the morning."
"So, you can read books for free -- as long as you're the first person to get to your public library's computer room in the morning."
Or, y'know, if you... check out a copy of the book. 'cause that's what libraries are for.
"So, you can read books for free â" as long as you're the first person to get to your public library's computer room in the morning."
It's much worse than that. If you were to read those same books electronically from the comfort and convenience of your own home, then your eyeballs would explode and your body would spontaneously combust, possibly killing your entire family and burning down your house. At least that's the only reasonable explanation I can think of for why I would have to sit in front of a computer in the library to access an online resource instead of using my own computer.
Better known as 318230.
The right to read.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Well, maybe libraries need to build a string of tiny booths outdoors, each with a little consecutively numbered sign: Library 0, Library 1...Library N and one terminal, comfortable chair and window in each of them. It would seem to meet the letter of the agreement. ;-)
I've been reading Lessig's Free Culture (available online somewhere; I have a local copy). From the preface:
He's no Isaac Asimov; the book isn't exactly gripping, but what he has to say is incredibly important.
Ironically, searching Google Books for Lessig's freely available book yields this: "This is a preview. The total pages displayed will be limited."
You can read/download it here at. Here is a PDF version.
Free Martian Whores!
Nothing says "great" like forcing cash-starved public institutions to ship wood pulp back and forth to get those words to me, to preserve the vanishingly small chance a publisher may decide to start printing those words again someday.
Many libraries either have the CDROMs mounted on a disc changer, or the content served out from a network share. They have special licensing terms for libraries to allow them to do this. Some like ProQuest or EBSCO provide that licensing at reduced cost or sometimes even no charge for certain libraries, in the name of being 'good corporate citizens'.
(I have two friends who are both librarians)
My blog
I just finished a term paper for University on this very subject, my argument and topic of discussion was why an online book resource and/or library differs from a traditional library.
If Google were to purchase a copy of a book and lend it out electronically, and a library were to purchase a copy of a book and lend it out physically how do they differ?
The main difference is that the library likely has only one copy and only one copy can be borrowed at a time. If they were to have more than one copy they could thus lend out more at one time but would thus have to pay for each additional copy. Google, on the other hand, has purchased one copy of a book which can be borrowed simultaneously by X number of people around the world without the need to purchase additional copies.
The issue of volumes being out of print should be of no direct concern to the publishing industry. They have no desire or need to republish the book, hence it being out of print, so it really should just become part of the public domain and freely available to anyone who wishes to read it.
Of course the problem with that is that the price of rare out of print book sales might be effected negatively. There is no easy answer, just a more preferable one depending on which side of the fence you are on.
I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
Agreed, but his logic is incredibly faulty just the same, and there may actually be people who think like that.
"Don't BE evil" is not the same as "don't DO evil". And at any rate, Pontiac's motto used to be "we build excitement" when in fact what they actually built was cars.
Corporate mottos are meaningless to anyone but an idiot, Google's included (as much as I like their search engine).
Free Martian Whores!
Do these 7 million out-of-print books include porno mags? I'd love to see Marilyn Monroe pop up while searching the archives!
"Mama always said life was like a box a chocolates, never know what you're gonna get" - Forest Gump
The reading issue is better addressed with Congress than it is the publishing industry. Sure, the publishing industry has a lot more friends in Congress than the public seems to, but ultimately, the best solution is not to hope that a large company can force the industry into favorable terms, it is reasonable terms for copyright.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
FTA:
If you read the agreement, you'll see that it restricts each public library to exactly one Google terminal. Tens of millions of books online-but at any given moment, no more than 16,543 people are allowed to read them without paying. (That's how many public libraries and branches there are in the United States, according to the American Library Association-one for every 18,500 Americans.)
I'm not sure what the procedure is for turning your house into a public library, but I suspect that you're SOL - Especially if you're not willing to open up to the public.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Why do people keep thinking out of print means impossible to find, not being sold, etc?
OUT OF PRINT means it's NOT BEING PRINTED.
Current copies can be sold.
If those are gone (VERY rarely does a book actually sell out. Even rarer is a book selling out, and a publisher not immediately printing more.), the used market kicks in.
Libraries are just that - LIBRARIES. They collect books, and they just happen to let you check them out for a while.
Books go out of print and are reprinted later all the time. They are printed for different countries. They are collected into compilations or collections, which are printed when finished. They are updated by the author, and a new revision is printed. They are reprinted when the author writes a new book or a sequel, wins an award, dies, the book is turned into a movie, etc.
Out of print means just that.
There is currently not a printing press making new copies of the book. Copies are often hard to acquire from a store, and maybe even a library. But all you nerds have this thing called the internet where you can get together and buy and trade things.
I seem to recall a certain website named after a certain river/rain forest/tribe of warrior women getting it's fucking start by making is vastly easier to access books in general.
It's Google's fault because the program only came about AFTER being sued, for the very thing you describe.
not to be a google-apologist, but to be fair, why is this google's fault? i would bet that the one-google-terminal-per-library is a stipulation that the publishers insisted on.
google could have gone to court with this and lost and we'd have ... nothing. at least now, there's SOME access to all these out of print books.
i'm just sayin'...
You're all gonna regret these attacks on Google when the books start burning.